With college hoops kicking off this week, I wondered why there wasn’t more fanfare ringing in the new season. Then I wondered why I wondered that.
.
Slowly, ever so slowly, the belittling of the WNBA among basketball critics is eroding. Memes are being drawn up, philosophies followed, anti-ladyball sentiments appearing more irrational and the movement toward the WNBA being a respected league has already begun to take root.
>
This respect has formed from a) esoteric sports fans ironically liking the WNBA long enough that they just started actually liking it and b) bored NBA fans with nothing better to do over the summer but to fill the void with the WNBA. What both demographics learned is that the girls can play. They can’t jump worth a damn, but they play hard. They hustle and have a steady sense of the game’s fundamentals, spacing, ball movement and play calling … they understand everything casual fans miss.

Weird. That sounds like the reputation college ball has developed among people rationalizing why they don’t like the NBA.  What are they going to say to rationalize the dismissal of the WNBA?

The best part of college hoops. You'll notice there's nary a hoop or ball in the picture.

College hoops is a weeding-out process for the pros. A revenue churning operation for each school’s athletic program and a gathering spot for the student body. It’s also, depending on the month, the matchup or the fullness of the moon, an occasionally exciting couple of hours. What it is not, sadly, is quality basketball.

University basketball, like everything else college kids touch, is sloppy.
>
I understand why college ball remains (and will continue to remain) popular and probably more popular than the WNBA. But just because I understand it, doesn’t mean it makes any sense. Does that make sense?
.
So much of the average college fan’s reasons for preferring college over the pros sound good as long as you don’t think too hard about it. A consensus among NBA detractors is that the league profits from employing thugs who take five steps on their way to an uncontested dunk. This isn’t true, but let’s say it is. Let’s say sloppy play exhibited by athletes with dollar signs in their eyes is an accurate depiction of the pro game. I dare those naysayers then to explain their support of the college game.
.
The college game – from a technical standpoint - is weak. Even when both teams play hard, they play poorly. With the exception of the few dozen college athletes who graduate to the pros each year, it’s like watching a squat version of the Knicks playing the Warriors … only without the massive scoring. Ugh. I just threw up a little in my mouth. I’m regretting that second helping of sausage patties. Why is this the case (the horrible play of college basketball, not the sausage patty part)? Because they’re kids. Most of college hoops’ players are only slightly above-average to begin with. On top of that, depending on the stage, they’re nervous or simply don’t have a natural head for the game. And did I mention that they’re kids?
.
It’s perfectly acceptable for a newborn fawn to wobbly struggle with its first steps. Nothing wrong with it. But don’t try to sell me that somehow it’s a purer – and therefore better – form of running than a full-grown deer.
.
Shot efficiency, turnover efficiency, shot selection, low-post moves; there’s a reason high draft picks come to the NBA and have to develop these things. There’s a reason only a select few rookies are NBA ready when they arrive in the league. Thousands of students play college basketball each year and fewer than 20 of them will make a significant positive impact on any of the professional teams that draft them.
.
If it’s a principles thing with the NBA, a resentment that these athletes can hustle and run plays yet chose not to despite their handsome pay, fair enough. There’s points to be had there. But again, why would the college game be the answer?
.
College programs thrive on the level of talent they can bring into the universities year after year. And the best programs – the ones that annually play the “best” brand of basketball, are the ones that field winners. And how many of those winning players on those winning teams do you suppose walk onto the court worried about their chemlab assignment due on Wednesday? In fact, how many of those winners do you suppose even have chemlab? The players that drive excitement, sponsorship, viewership and institutional popularity in the universities are the ones aiming for the NBA. It would be naïve to believe that because college players aren’t making money, that they’re not still playing for it.
.
Let’s be honest, it would be naïve to believe some college players aren’t making money.
.
The women’s game? Even the all-stars of the league are lucky to clear $60,000 a year and this is as far as a female basketball player can go. They’re not playing for anything else. Hustle, drive, teamwork, skill and this is the end of the line for them. Who’s beating the drum for them?
.
In the end, I’m very capable of believing that it all comes down to the viewer’s own ego. You went to Kansas (par exemple), you were a Jayhawk. You were never a Bull or a Laker or a Mystic or a Mercury and you don’t owe them anything. You’ll root for Paul Pierce, Kirk Hinrich or Wilt Chamberlain because they were Jayhawks, but not really their pro teams. College sports, more than any other level of sport, allow us to legitimately feel a part of it all.

Whoa. College hoops fans actually gawking at Erin Andrews. I did not expect that.

And I’m not knocking that experience. Let ‘em paint their face, gawk at Erin Andrews, memorize lewd chants, co-opt their team’s glory as their own. That’s what college is there for. Live it up. This isn’t a brushback pitch against any of that. But this is a clarification that none of that is basketball. There are the naysayers who berate the pro game, ignore the women’s game and deign to call the college game the best basketball has to offer.

But those people are confused. They must be, because it’s not even close.
.
______________________

Photos courtesy of Yahoo! Sports via Getty Images

Hey Lamar, how’ve you been since we last spoke?

I’m pretty sure we’ve never spoken.

Oh. Well, how’ve you been up to this point in your life then?

Huh?

How’ve you been – you know what? Nevermind. Let me ask you about your clothing line. I’ve noticed you around town lately sporting tons of weird shirts with, like, lions and wolves and stuff on them. Is that part of Lamar Odom’s clothing line?

Huh?

The sparkly lions and stuff. I notice you wear shirts that look like the ones my grandmother bought me at the D.C. zoo in 1981. Are they from the Lamar Odom line of clothing?

Naw, man. My Revelation line mostly has angels and crosses and stuff.

So … what’s with the power animals all over your duds, then? You know your clothes are dangerously close to what sci-fi nerds wear, right? Are you into power animals?

Yeah. Most definitely.

What’s your power animal?

Skittles.

Your power animal is Skittles?

Sho ’nuff.

Not wolves or lions or eagles? Skittles? I didn’t know fruity candy could be a power animal. That’s … that’s baffling.

Huh?

Why aren’t you wearing your clothing line, Lamar? You’ll be seen in public with a sparkly lion shirt and a Kardashian, but not your own Revelation tee? That seems odd.

Yeah well. I like eagles. You know? Besides, we’re just trying to take it one game at a time.
And y’know … however I can contribute to help out the team, that’s what I’m-a do.

Dude, you’re like a smorgasbord of disconnected thoughts.

I haven’t had s’mores in years, man. So I don’t know.

No, not s’mores. Smorgas – you know what? Nevermind. Lamar, it was great talking to you … sorta. Good luck this year with the repeat and the reality show -

Huh?

Ask your wife.

___________________________

Photos courtesy of Flickr

Early Tuesday morning, former NBA pariah Stephon Marbury found himself too giddy from a rousing night of dance lessons and stargazing to fall asleep. So what does he do? He pushes out a few tweets disparaging former teammate and Celtics captain Paul Pierce.

Makes sense. 

His actions, anyway,  not the content of his remarks. Marbury was a player, an all-star alongside some of the men he – after a night of really nailing those Jitterbug spins – feels compelled to rail against from time to time. And because of his approximation to these people, many of us can’t help but listen.

Seemingly at random, Marbury’s tweet-taunt (twaunt?) was that L.A.’s Kobe Bryant is a better player than Pierce. He also supposed that Pierce wouldn’t agree to this sentiment and – still unprovoked – sent out a second tweet claiming Pierce’s “style is played out.” Perhaps he was referring to his choice of suits, but I doubt it.

Marbury has never shied from running off at the mouth (or the tweet), but that he leveled such an unprovoked and, dare I say, obvious observation made it an oddly compelling one.

Maybe Starbury knows something we don’t. What if every hoops analyst, fan and basketball theorist somehow totally dropped the ball on this. I mean, in the last two years, both Bryant and Pierce do have the same number of rings, after all. What if Paul Pierce was, at one time, better than Bryant?

Turns out, Pierce kinda sorta was. The following graph compares the two players’ Win Shares throughout the decade. A win share is a statistic that complicatedly calculates how many wins a team owes to the individual player. If the Celtics win 60 games in a season and Pierce has a 13 win share, he is responsible for 13 of the Celtics’ 60 wins. Another way to think of it is if you removed Pierce and his 13 win shares, the Celtics would have only won 47 games that season.

Pierce / Bryant Win Share Chart (click to embiggen)

If Win Shares illustrate the impact an individual has had on a team, you’ll notice that Pierce only helped his team more than Bryant in one season (2004-05). You’ll remember that as the season Gary Payton and Karl Malone left the Lakers and Bryant wallowed on one of the worst Lakers teams of the last 20 years. His Lakers went 34-48. Bryant was responsible for 21.5 percent of his team’s wins. Pierce’s Celtics that year were 45-37. Pierce was responsible for 25.6 percent of them.

The downside of Win Shares is that Bryant was on some very good teams during the last decade and Pierce mostly wasn’t. Therefore wins came more easily to Bryant than Pierce. So let’s look at a more individual-heavy stat: the Player Efficiency Rating (PER).

PER, simply put, adds together a player’s positive contributions, subtracts his negative contributions and rates a player on a per-minute basis in the form of a number. The league average is 15.

Pierce / Bryant Player Efficiency Rating (Click to embiggen)

Pierce only tops Bryant once in PER and it’s during Pierce’s lockout-shortened rookie year. After that however, Bryant clearly never looks back.

So what happens when we combine WS and PER? First, we call it something catchy like “Whisper.” Whispers take into account both a player’s worth to their respective team and their overall performance in a game. Does Pierce ever come close?

Pierce / Bryant Win Share + Player Efficiency Rating (click to embiggen)

Besides the tie in the 50-game 1998-99 season, Pierce’s WSPER was only higher than Bryant’s once and even then it was pretty close.

As for Marbury? The suggestion that Pierce’s “played out” game can’t stand up to Bryant’s implies that at one point it could. But unless Marbury was specifically discussing Pierce’s Win Share or WSPER stats from 2004-05, I’m not sure he’s got a leg to stand on. They’re not in the same tier. Except for 2004-05. Pierce was a better player in that one season. He shot more efficiently, rebounded more, stole more, shot five fewer shots a game and played 16 more games than Bryant.

But that’s it. Bryant’s been better ever since. Comparatively, Pierce’s style has been “played out” for five seasons.

To be honest, I regret exerting this much energy into disproving a tweet that no one really believed anyway.

On Sunday, Laker coach Phil Jackson was interviewed on KLAC radio in Los Angeles about the ongoing development with his team, including the somewhat surprising acquisition of forward Ron Artest. For most members of the media, the arrival of Ron-Ron in LaLa Land was an unforeseeable development. For Phil Jackson, it was something that was foreseeable 13 months ago.

Jackson was asked if Kobe Bryant – similar to Michael Jordan – ever had input on the acquisitions of player personnel from year to year. Jackson never really answered the question, but dropped the following nugget instead.

After the Lakers lost by 539 points (actually just 39) in the sixth and final game of the 2008 Finals, Ron Artest, who was in the audience and still under contract with the Sacramento Kings inexplicably got into L.A.’s locker room and inexplicably found his way in front of Phil Jackson to offer up his services to the Lakers in the near future. All of this inexplicably happened without any of the STAPLES Center security categorically getting fired … inexplicably.

Are NBA players just allowed in all league locker rooms? Were the guards scared of Tru Warrier? Did bribery happen? Perhaps we’ll never know?

According to the Zen Master:

Ron said, “Coach, I can help your team, I can get that championship for the Lakers.’” I said, “Well, thanks Ron, that’s very nice, I appreciate your sympathies.  We’ll see what happens as you go through this year.’”

Phil Jackson is like a ninja. I have no problem believing that he sat there all Dracula-shouldered and calm listening to one of the most unpredictable athletes of the last 20 years stand in his locker room and audition like he was a Laker Girl. I also have no problem believing Jackson thought about the strangeness of such a disruption for less than two minutes after it happened. On to next season. New business.

Perhaps unfortunately for Kobe Bryant, Jackson didn’t feel the need to escort Ron-Ron out because instead of saying his peace and leaving, Artest went further.

He walked out of that coaches’ area, and in to the shower and told Kobe the same thing.  Kobe’s been knowing Ron’s intentions for the last two years … He didn’t soap down Kobe and he didn’t towel him off, I’m not saying that.

I won’t lie, if I was alone in a shower and saw Ron Artest standing there, I’d assume I had only seconds left to live. Why don’t Jackson and Bryant seem more confused or creeped out by Artest roaming the bowels of a stadium he doesn’t play for? The most entertaining thing about this story is not Ron Artest’s disregard for a) tact b) privacy and c) normalcy, it’s imagining how uncomfortable Bryant must have been shooting the breeze a) minutes after losing the NBA Finals b) with a player who is neither a teammate nor a friend and c) wet and naked, but not in sexy way.

Do you think they hugged at the end of Artest’s query? Did Bryant awkwardly grip a towel around his waste while shaking hands? Now that they are teammates, will Artest assume that the shower pop-in is an acceptable form of negotiation?

UPDATE: Bryant’s got his side of the story. Remarkably, it’s not much different from Jackson’s. “[Artest] came in there and he said, ‘This is not going to happen to you [again]. I’m going to come in here and help you out.’ He wound up being in Houston, and [then] took us to Game 7. But he’s here now. It’s something we’ve both been trying to make happen for a while and here it is.”

The only other question is how much Bryant spent on the diamond he gave his wife after she found out he and Artest showered together.

Listen to the full radio interview HERE

Halfway through this year’s Wimbledon tournament, stories popped up after a spokesman from the All England Club said that the people who schedule the matches to the courts tend to give the prime spots to the more attractive female athletes. Not surprisingly, the media and the blogosphere (unless bloggers are counted as members of the media, which my lack of a press pass suggests they are not) cried foul and sexism and sexism fouls and foul sexism.

The weirdest thing about the sudden hubbub over hot tennis players is that really, the Wimbledon play committee is far less guilty of it than even they’ve suggested.

Quick! Name five current female tennis players. I’ll give you a second to think of it. Either you can rattle off 25 of them, in which case, congratulations, you’re a tennis fan or you’re like most Americans and can only come up with four: 1) Venus and 2) Serena Williams, 3) Maria Sharapova and 4) Anna … Kour … Korny … Kournicopia … Korcoran … well, whateverhernameis. Hot chick.

Admit it. I’m right aren’t I? Don’t shake your head. I can read your thoughts. That’s how I knew you meant Anna Kournikova (who hasn’t played a professional tennis match since 2003, by the way).

I’m not a shill for Wimbledon, nor am I claiming that various forms of sexism do not permeate the sport. They do, they exist at Wimbledon, but not in such an open-and-shut manner as has been tossed around the Internet lately. The gist is that someone like Maria Kirilenko is hotter than someone like No. 1-ranked Dinara Safina and therefore – Safina’s rank be damned – Kirilenko gets Centre Court.

Eight days have passed in Wimbledon with nine women’s matches on Centre Court in that time. It is important to note that in that same span, 15 men’s matches have been played at Centre Court. More on that in a bit.

The conspiracy theorists jumping all over this story lean on the philosophy that the best competitors (the top-ranked females, presumably) should yield the brightest spotlight. Of the nine ladies matches on Centre Court in the first eight days of competition, six of them showcased a top-ranked women. So let us be clear: We’re only talking about three matches that can possibly offend anyone…

Look at the list of Centre Court ladies matches:

Photo courtesy of Yahoo! Sports via AP

DAY 1: (2) Serena Williams def. Neuza Silva
DAY 2: (3) Venus Williams def. Stefanie Voegel
DAY 3: Gisela Dulko def. (24) Maria Sharapova
DAY 4: (9) Caroline Wozniacki def. Maria Kirilenko
DAY 5: (8) Victoria Azarenko def. (28) Sorana Cristea
DAY 6: (3) Venus Williams def. C.S. Navarro
DAY 7: (1) Dinara Safina def. (17) A. Mauresmo
DAY 8: (1) Dinara Safina def. Sabine Lisicki
(2) Serena Williams def. (8) Victoria Azarenka

Besides a shocking amount of vowels, what do you see in this list? Days 3-5 (listed in red) are clearly the matches that compelled the Daily News article to say, “While a succession of easy-on-the-eye unknowns have appeared in Wimbledon’s prime arena, the top women’s seeds have been relegated to lesser courts.”

Here’s what I’m willing to concede about those three days: Higher ranked players were playing somewhere other than Centre Court. I’ll also concede that while the top-ranked were elsewhere, attractive tennis players were at Centre Court. Six of ‘em.

Here’s what I’m unwilling to concede:  That they are unknowns.

First off, don’t call Maria Sharapova an unknown. She’s known. She’s very known. She’s more known than you and me combined. Stop it. On Day 4, when Venus Williams was on Court 1 and Safina took Court 2, up-and-comer Caroline Wozniacki defeated Maria Kirilenko at Centre Court. Wozniacki had just made a splash at the French Open a few weeks before and, oh yeah … she’s the ninth-ranked woman in the world. Let’s say that despite being one of the 10 best female tennis players in the world, Wozniacki is still unknown, isn’t that all the more reason to get her onto a prominent platform to promote the sport? You’ll be hard-pressed to find people knowledgeable about tennis who aren’t bored with the Williams sisters’ absolute domination for the past decade. It makes more sense to showcase players outside the top three early in the tournament because the likelihood that they’ll be around later dwindles with each round. The next day Victoria Azarenka (ranked one spot above Wozniacki) defeated No. 28 Sorana Cristea. Safina and Venus Williams had the day off, which only left Serena. Where was Serena? On Court 2 battling it out with unseeded Roberta Vinci.

Sophisticated tennis fans would more likely prefer to watch two ranked players, right? Isn’t there a better chance for close competition between any two seeds than a  No. 2 and a non-seed? Unsophisticated fans probably just want to watch hot chicks grunt. Either way, Wimbledon made the right call.

From The Daily Mail:

The fact that many seats remained empty for the Cristea-Azarenka clash implies that the knowledgeable SW19 crowd were underwhelmed by the tennis on offer. Which would suggest that attractive players are placed on Centre to amuse the BBC television audience, some of whom care more for a pretty face than a powerful forehand.

This brings me to my next non-concession: That the SW19 crowd is so sophisticated that they only follow “good tennis.” UPDATE: They don’t. From a Day 10 recap: “The [No.1 Dinara Safina v. No. 3 Venus Williams match opened before a half-full Centre Court as the crowd sought shade and refreshment after Serena’s almost three-hour victory over Russia’s Elena Dementieva in the day’s first semi-final."

Photo courtesy of Yahoo! Sports via Getty Images

Look at the picture on the left. This was taken at the conclusion of Wednesday’s Day 3 match between No. 24 Maria Sharapova and unseeded Gisela Dulko. Not too many empty seats, right? Surely all those sophisticated strawberries ‘n’ cream-eaters showed up for more than the grunting. No. They’re there for the same reason people watch Venus and Serena: because the Sharapova Supernova is known and marketed like any other marquee athlete. There’s nothing wrong with this, but there’s a difference between marketing and sexism. C’mon people, this is sports here. Stop acting like this circus hasn’t rolled into town countless times before. Most fans – even rabid basketball fans – don’t go to a Lakers game to see solid execution of Phil Jackson‘s triangle offense. They go to see Kobe Bryant drop some awesomeness on the other team.

The final concession that I’m unwilling to make is that the female players whom are most deserving of the Centre Court spot are being denied the honor. It’s not true. At least not insofar as some other female players are getting more of a shot.

Both Roger Federer and Andy Murray (ranked No. 2 and 3 in the world respectively) were easily the favorites coming into this year’s Wimbledon. In the first eight days, they’ve each played on Centre Court four times. The top three females have each made it to Centre Court twice in that same span.

On the surface, this just proves that the cream of the female crop isn’t getting the same play that the cream of the male crop is. This is true, but not because prettier ladies are taking up valuable spots. It’s because of the men. There’s a bigger problem than favoring beauty at Wimbledon, it’s favoring men. They spend twice as much time on Centre Court as the ladies. Why? Well because the ATP has heftier competition (and bigger draws because of it).

It would be naive to pretend physical beauty plays no part in player popularity and exposure. It does. But one player’s beauty would not get her on Centre Court alone; that part of this entire storyline has been blown way out of proportion. The Daily News, BBC and dozens of blogs this week started blaming the leaves, when the roots are the problem. Until the WTA, Wimbledon and other tennis tournaments begin making as many of its players as exciting and varied as the men, they’ll be stuck in the same rut they are in now: no one knows half of the top 10 seeds and Anna Kournikova remains one of the few female players anyone can name.

]]>

I always said if I ever made the Lakers, I’d take an extra aggressive dive into the L.A. cheerleaders in my first week. Well, unseeded Michael Llodra must have had the same thought during Wednesday’s Wimbledon second round. Since there aren’t any dancers in the tournament, Llondra was compelled to collide with 15-year-old ball girl Erin Lorencin and the judge’s high chair. VIDEO

The injury was bad enough that after his next serve – 20 minutes into the match – Llodra was forced to retire. Lorencin, not quite as hurt as Llodra, barely knew what hit her.

“I don’t remember much,” Lorencin said. “I was really confused. I was very shocked. I really didn’t expect it to happen. It is really embarrassing. My little brother was very pleased and laughing.”

World No. 34 Tommy Haas, the winner of the Wimbledon warm-up Queen’s Cup tournament, waltzed into the third round, but not before tossing a little extra tennis the Centre Court fans’ way. He volleyed with a ball boy and ball girl Chloe Chambers (without collapsing on either of them) to provide the cheated crowd with a bit more tennis.

In honor of Llodra’s early exit, Sidelines looks at the five best sideline collisions after the jump. Cheerleaders will be involved as often as possible.

5. If he didn’t get this girl’s number, there’s no hope for him

.
.

4. (tie) Shaq goes cougar diving

.
.

That’s a 300 lbs. guarantee that you’re gonna spill your beer

.
.

3. Note to Clippers: Check Blake Griffin’s coccyx
.
>
>

2. Devin Harris stole my move!

.
.

1. Jeter comes up bloody

.

Sun forcing an excited Trevor Ariza to back off during Kobe's 'me time.'

SIDELINES: Monkey King – I hope you don’t mind if I call you Monkey King – what was the first thing you did when you got back to the locker room after Game 5 in Orlando?
MONKEY KING: I helped some of the traveling assistants prepare all the champagne bottles and made sure the tarps were secured around the players’ stuff.
S: Really? You weren’t on the court giving interviews to the Chinese media or anything?
MK: (Laughs) Oh, no. Heavens, no. No one over there remembers I’m on this team. They patiently waited for a chance to talk to Mr. Bryant.
S: Kobe?
MK: I call him Mr. Bryant. He asks that I call him that.
S: Why?
MK: Anything less would confuse our professional relationship. It’s part of the deal we’ve worked out.
S: What deal?
MK: I sit with him on the team plane and stop other teammates from talking to him when he’s tired or listening to Matchbox 20 and in return he…well, he lets me do that.
S: Kobe Bryant listens to Matchbox 20?

Exhibit A: Kobe Bryant is only happy when Sun makes him Salt 'n' Pepa mixes.

MK: Not just Matchbox 20, but that is his favorite. I burn him mixed cds from all the illegal songs he makes me download. He said he’d download them, but he doesn’t want to risk getting caught. Which makes sense. It’s for the good of our team that he not get caught. I’m happy to risk it. That’s one of the reasons I deserve the ring. We would never win a championship if Mr. Bryant was upset all season, right? My job on this team is to make sure Mr. Bryant and sometimes Lamar are happy.
S: Some would say your job is to learn how to run Phil Jackson’s offense; probably by watching Derek Fisher.
MK: Interesting, but ultimately, false. Also, please don’t tell Mr. Bryant that I ever help Lamar.
S: Do you have any other duties on this team?
MK: Coach Jackson told me to stay out of his way once in December. So I started doing that.
S: You couldn’t totally have avoided him. After all you played 28 minutes spread out over 10 games this season.
MK: Yes, that’s true. But most of the time I just sat next to [D.J.] Mbenga. Coach would point for him to enter the game and I’d get up thinking he was pointing at me. Most of the time Coach Jackson would tell me to sit down. But every so often he’d stop paying attention long enough for me to slip onto the court.
S: To hear you tell it, you played a very limited role on this Laker team. Why do you feel you earned a ring just as much as anyone else?
MK: Everyone has a role on this team. For example, Trevor’s is to be a relentless help defender as well as premiere yo-yo artist. Pau does an excellent impression of James Brown and me? I make Mr. Bryant happy. I rub his feet, pre-sip his Gatorade to make sure it hasn’t been poisoned and I am his alibi when he’s lying to his wife. Can we not all agree that making Mr. Bryant happy is of the utmost importance in winning a championship?
S: If that were true, Monkey King, how did Kobe Bryant manage to win three championships with Shaquille O’Neal?
MK: (Blank stare) This interview is over …

_____________________________

Photos courtesy of Yahoo! via Getty Images

I feel for you moviegoers, I do. What’s happening more and more in Hollywood is the same erosion I’ve seen in another great art form: sports nicknames.

Gone are the days of classic clever nicknames like George “The Iceman” Gervin, Jared “The Pillsbury Throwboy” Lorenzen (also known as “The Hefty Lefty”), Harold “The Galloping Ghost” Grange, Jaromir “Puff Nuts” Jagr, Ted “The Splendid Splinter” Williams or Karl “The Mailman” Malone. I could go on and on (and on), but with the exception of a select few current players, nicknames in the last 5-10 years have been bland and unoriginal.

Below are the 10 worst nickname fails.

Photo courtesy of Getty Images

“The Princess of Diving” China’s Guo Jingjing is considered the most successful diver in Olympic history and she totally deserves a nickname, but this? Why not call her the “Jing-a-ding Kid” or something snappy like that? “The Princess of Diving” is so…so…untrue. Diving has no royalty. To have a princess you’d need a queen. Who’s the queen of diving? And why isn’t that person considered the most successful diver in Olympic history? Imagine if James Brown was called “The Hardest Working Man At This Concert Venue On This Particular Night”?

Photo courtesy of Flickr

“Candy Man” The world was enamored with the candy-eating habits of L.A. Laker Lamar Odom right before the start of this season’s NBA Finals. It was so enamored that it totally forgot that about 1998′s No. 1 draft pick Michael Olowokandi. I know “The Kandi Man” is different than “The Candy Man,” but c’mon…you say ‘em the same. And with Odom, we’re just three Candymen away from five. And nothing good comes from saying Candyman five times.

Photo courtesy of Flickr

“Pistol” This nickname first belonged to NBA guard Pete Maravich in the 70s and frankly it was awesome. But then the name was attached to tennis player Pete Sampras and became less awesome. Both players were extraordinary, but once there’s a “Pistol Pete,” you can’t just go and start another Pistol Pete. This isn’t replacing your dead chihuahua with some other chihuahua. There can only be one. Don’t cheapen them both. Just because the Petes were in different sports doesn’t mean people won’t notice.

Photo courtesy of Flickr

“Pudge” Sox catcher Carlton Fisk was “Pudge.” No one else. You know why he was called “Pudge” because he wasn’t a skinny man. You know why he wasn’t called “Fatty” Fisk? Because despite his shape, he was beloved. Fat people who are beloved are called pudgy, not fat. The other “Pudge,” Ivan Rodriguez hasn’t been fat for a decade – how could he let this nickname happen, much less continue? Look at the adjacent picture, does that guy look pudgy to you? Odom did like Candy. Sampras was a pistol. But Rodriguez? He ain’t pudgy. Why steal a nickname that isn’t even appropriate?

Photo courtesy of Flickr

“L.T.” New York Giants linebacker Lawrence Taylor is L.T. The nickname is lame and unimaginative enough that it can only belong to someone as rabid as L.T. (ignore his sixth round exit from “Dancing With the Stars”) Giving Taylor a quirky nickname would be overkill; like jamming Skittles in a Twinkie…it would be too much. It’s bad enough when you steal a clever nickname, but the people who nicknamed San Diego Charger RB LaDanian Tomlinson were too lazy to even come up with their own bland nickname.

Photo c/o Time/Life

“Sugar” Boxers Carlos De Leon, Ray Leonard and Shane Mosely: What do they have in common? They all stole a fairly gay nickname from Ray Robinson. Ray Leonard reportedly didn’t want to step on Robinson’s name, but tough. Because Robinson was a Ray and Leonard was a Ray…what can be done? Everyone’s hands were tied. Also, “Sugar” De Leon? Gay.

Photo courtesy of Flickr

“The Flower” Guy LeFleur had this horrible nickname hung on him. You know why? You’ll never guess. Y’see, “le fleur” translates to flower in French. So you can see, it’s just a quick hop, skip and jump to calling Guy “the Flower.” Except that “The Flower” is about as wussy as being called “Prance Dancer.” If I were LeFleur, I’d have drawn blood from anyone who called me that until there was a Pavlovian reaction to the word “flower.” I wouldn’t stop until whenever le fleur was uttered, people automatically thought about bleeding.

Photo courtesy of Yahoo! Sports via Getty

“ManRam” The Dominicans are really the largest victims here. Any time a Ramirez or a Rodriguez makes it big, everyone knows what their nicknames are going to be. It’s positively mechanic. HanRam, ArmRam (what the hell’s an ArmRam? It sounds gross and painful) and the original ManRam. Manny Ramirez’s nickname wouldn’t be so bad if it was connected to He-Man’s RamMan. If that were the case, I might actually think it was kinda cool. But I doubt it was and I’m positive none of the other Ramirez players have anything to do with the Masters of the Universe.

Photo courtesy of Yahoo! Sports via Getty

Anything Shaquille O’Neal names himself If there’s a cardinal rule of nicknames, it’s that you cannot give one to yourself. NBA all-star Shaquille O’Neal has ignored this rule for over a decade now. He got kinda lucky with the first few (“Shaq,” “The Diesel” “The Big Aristotle”) but then kept going like a toddler who found a way to make his parents laugh. Prepare for it to get beat into the ground. “ShaqFu,” “The Big Daddy,” Superman,” “The Big Agave,” “The Big Cactus,” “The Big Shaqtus,” “The Big Galactus,” “Wilt Chamberneezy,” “The Big Baryshnikov,” “The Real Deal,” “Dr. Shaq,” “Sheriff Shaq” and “Shaqovic.” Yup. Okay. Got it. O’Neal is large and likes the first four letters of his name. Hey, I got one. How ’bout “ShaqFool”?

Photo courtesy of Yahoo! Sports via AP

“A-Rod” I want to punch someone. Who can I blame for this? Is this J-Lo’s fault? P-Diddy? More than any other nickname pattern, this is the dumbest and laziest. It’s not a nickname, it’s an abbreviation of someone’s full name. That’s it. Compare A-Rod or T-Mac to “Sweetwater” or “Cool Papa” or “Nightrain”… it ain’t even close, man. If my mom can figure out why a player like Francisco Rodriguez is named K-Rod and is tickled by how clever it is, rest assured it is neither cool nor clever. It’s like when your mother asks you how you like the new Black Eyed Peas album…that’s when you know it’s time to stop listening to Black Eyed Peas albums.

Really, that’s the worst thing I can say about any of these nicknames: My mom totally gets them.